0
popsjumper

Do we need AFFIC improvement at this time?

Recommended Posts

So, what do YOU think?

If you think the Accelerated Free Fall Instructor Course (AFFIC) needs improvement, do you have suggestions on what needs improvement and how to go about doing that?

If you think it doesn't need improvement, clarify your reasoning why not?

If you think it's wasted effort, why is that? Costs? Implementation issues, other....

As a side issue, if applicable to you, who do you think would be best to drive the project development? Members? USPA? AFFICDs or I/Es?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Long overdue and should be driven by AFFCDs and I/Es.
Right now, they are the subject matter experts.

Just off the top of my head:


- Test for general skydiving knowledge....the book and common sense stuff.

- Evaluate Coach course learning and teaching experience.
Instead of simply having the candidates regurgitate pre-determined outlines, have them demonstrate their current teaching methods and then critique and then correct for minor issues as necessary.

Those who have not been using their Coach ratings to teach will stand out like sore thumbs with major issues and should be directed to get more experience using the learning from the coach Course and then attempt AFFI later.

- Minimum 1 year Coach experience, no substitution for jump numbers

- Figure out some way to beat the good-ol'-boy pencil whipping for qualification criteria. (LOLOL...just thought I'd throw that in there.)

- Wider time frame between AFF pre-course and the evaluation course.
Well, it's easy enough to do today what you learned yesterday...but what are you going to remember tomorrow?


Do have any suggestions one way or the other?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

- Wider time frame between AFF pre-course and the evaluation course.
Well, it's easy enough to do today what you learned yesterday...but what are you going to remember tomorrow?



I'm short on time, and might have more thoughts later, but this one stood out to me.

You have to make a choice about the above. Is the course a test or a teaching session?

It used to be a test, where you came in 100% ready to go and were tested on your abilities. You could do the pre-course, and prep all you wanted, but once the course started, it was 'on' and everything you did went in the books.

The 'new' course is a teaching course. You jump until you say you're ready, and then you go live. The pre-course sometimes happens during the course itself. Your buddy might be going 'live' while you are still doing practice jumps. The idea is to teach people to do the job to the point that they are ready to pass the eval jumps.

So if you want a 'gap' built in there, you have to go back to the 'test' format. Even then, it's impractical because the pre-course was traditionally held the week before the course because the actual evaluators would be at the DZ and available. All other prep was with other people, some of them AFFI, some of them evaluators, but maybe not the actual evaluators you would be jumping with at the course. That was the appeal of the pre-course, it was a shot to jump with real evaluators, and the week before was really the only time to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLIDEANGLE

Biggest need is to include how to teach, evaluate, and remediate CANOPY CONTROL.



This cannot be over-stated IMO.
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davelepka

Quote

- Wider time frame between AFF pre-course and the evaluation course.
Well, it's easy enough to do today what you learned yesterday...but what are you going to remember tomorrow?



I'm short on time, and might have more thoughts later, but this one stood out to me.

You have to make a choice about the above. Is the course a test or a teaching session?

It used to be a test, where you came in 100% ready to go and were tested on your abilities. You could do the pre-course, and prep all you wanted, but once the course started, it was 'on' and everything you did went in the books.



Exactly. Currently, as I've learned from others is that yes, in many cases nowadays it's more jump 'till you think you can go hot two out of three times and then you're good-to-go. Well, up until next week when you've forgotten what you did.

Learn it this week (or whenever) and take the "test" later. IMO, that was a better way of getting competent AFFIs...at least you can say they retained it for a week (or whenever).

So yes, going to a similarity of the previous method was the intent of my thinking. Separating the Pre- and the Course by some time frame instead of back-to-back is the difference.


I was thinking...
- learn (pre-)
- practice (at home)
- test (course)
...with say at least a month or two for practice time.


And I agree that the timing between the two could be a logistical issue if you let it. IMO, graduating quality instructors outweighs any logistics problem. I see no necessity for this to be an insurmountable problem. Really, it would be cheaper for the candidates.

The process:
-AFFCD and evaluators show up together as normal.
-Group 1 has already had the pre-course....they are in the course.
-Group 2 new guys taking the pre-course.
-AFFCD teaches ground preps to Group 2 while evaluators work Group 1 for ground prep testing.
-Evaluators work Group 2 on air skills while AFFCD covers Course classwork.
-AFFCD and Evaluators work with Group 1 for air skills testing.

Note that activities for both groups would be happening at the same time.

Next month, same process now working with the old Group 2 guys for testing and the new Group 2 guys for pre-course learning. Really, it would be cheaper for the candidates since most traveling AFFCDs let the the candidates split some of the expenses and you'd have more guys in the split. The problem with that is the stationary schools who don't travel. Hmmmm....workin' it.....

Whaddayathink, Dave?
Too complicated?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLIDEANGLE

Biggest need is to include how to teach, evaluate, and remediate CANOPY CONTROL.



I agree with you and DocPop that this is important.
The AFFI hole exists mostly now because we have many, many, AFFIs baptised before CC courses became SOP and generally available.

Now we have CC courses pretty much readily available.

Consider this:
So, nowadays, by the time somebody is eligible to become an AFFI candidate, he should have had that canopy course already.

But first we'd need to decide just how much and what types of knowledge and teaching skills should an AFFI have. Same as current CC CDs(?) have? More? Less? Specifics? Basics? Advanced? Expert? Then...

...we could one of two things:
A.
- Have the knwledge and skills taught at the outside CC courses.
- Make a CC a prerequisite for AFFIC, and
- Have the CC tested for knowledge and teaching skill at the AFFIC, or

B.
- Make a CC a prerequisite for AFFIC, and
- Have this knowledge and skill taught for an instuctor's POV at the pre-course over and above any outside course already taken.
- Have it tested at the AFFIC.


Me? I like B. - with a test of knowledge and skills at the AFFIC.
Question for me is....since the two ground preps do, or at least should, include CC dive flows, how much of that pretty-simple stuff do we rely on as adequate OR do we do more extensive testing at AFFIC?

Do you have some other ideas on how to incorporate more CC knowledge and teaching skills into the AFFIC?


It's open mic week
:D:D
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper

***Biggest need is to include how to teach, evaluate, and remediate CANOPY CONTROL.



I agree with you and DocPop that this is important.
The AFFI hole exists mostly now because we have many, many, AFFIs baptised before CC courses became SOP and generally available.

Now we have CC courses pretty much readily available.

Consider this:
So, nowadays, by the time somebody is eligible to become an AFFI candidate, he should have had that canopy course already.

But first we'd need to decide just how much and what types of knowledge and teaching skills should an AFFI have. Same as current CC CDs(?) have? More? Less? Specifics? Basics? Advanced? Expert? Then...

...we could one of two things:
A.
- Have the knwledge and skills taught at the outside CC courses.
- Make a CC a prerequisite for AFFIC, and
- Have the CC tested for knowledge and teaching skill at the AFFIC, or

B.
- Make a CC a prerequisite for AFFIC, and
- Have this knowledge and skill taught for an instuctor's POV at the pre-course over and above any outside course already taken.
- Have it tested at the AFFIC.


Me? I like B. - with a test of knowledge and skills at the AFFIC.
Question for me is....since the two ground preps do, or at least should, include CC dive flows, how much of that pretty-simple stuff do we rely on as adequate OR do we do more extensive testing at AFFIC?

Do you have some other ideas on how to incorporate more CC knowledge and teaching skills into the AFFIC?


It's open mic week
:D:D

Option A complete misses the point that knowing how to do something and how to teach, evaluate, and remediate are entirely different things. That is part of why we have a problem with canopy control instruction.

This needs to be TAUGHT in the pre-course and evaluated (such as evaluate and remediate a series of video-taped landings)
The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GLIDEANGLE


This needs to be TAUGHT in the pre-course and evaluated (such as evaluate and remediate a series of video-taped landings)



Devil's advocate.....
So, what's your thought on how much or to what level of proficiency do we shoot for? Expert? Pro? or some such.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper

***
This needs to be TAUGHT in the pre-course and evaluated (such as evaluate and remediate a series of video-taped landings)



Devil's advocate.....
So, what's your thought on how much or to what level of proficiency do we shoot for? Expert? Pro? or some such.

I think the canopy control knowledge only needs to be up to, say, the level of teaching for the B-licence requirements. Realistically, by the time students are up to that level they should be looking for dedicated CC courses rather than relying on their old AFFI.

Having said that, being able to teach to B license level requires far more knowledge that just to be able to pass the B license test (I am thinking of the theory of aerodynamics, stalls, how the canopy turns with different inputs etc, etc).
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The process:
-AFFCD and evaluators show up together as normal.
-Group 1 has already had the pre-course....they are in the course.
-Group 2 new guys taking the pre-course.
-AFFCD teaches ground preps to Group 2 while evaluators work Group 1 for ground prep testing.
-Evaluators work Group 2 on air skills while AFFCD covers Course classwork.
-AFFCD and Evaluators work with Group 1 for air skills testing.

Note that activities for both groups would be happening at the same time.

Next month, same process now working with the old Group 2 guys for testing and the new Group 2 guys for pre-course learning.



I think it's too complicated, and that the costs and logistics are going to become a huge factor.

Example - we have run AFFICs at my dz for the past couple years running. We have never had more than 4 people in the course, and these were established, advertised courses. So everyone who could travel to the course did, and we still only had 4 people.

I think the answer, if there is an answer (or even a question), is to go back to the old format to a degree. You can have a pre-course to get your hands on the evaluators your working with, but there needs to be a 'start date' for the course where everything from that point forward is 'live'. Come ready to rock, or find yourself going home without a rating.

I don't think it's cheating to get a crack at the evaluators before hand, that's just being fair. Each one is different and has a different style. If the course standard is high enough, and there's a firm 'start date' for everyone, it puts it back on the student to prep sufficiently before the course.

I agree that you have a point about the status quo. When you get to practice until you and the evals feel your ready, and then you pass with just the min standard, you really snuck in under the wire and probably can't do the rating justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davelepka

Quote

The process:
-AFFCD and evaluators show up together as normal.
-Group 1 has already had the pre-course....they are in the course.
-Group 2 new guys taking the pre-course.
-AFFCD teaches ground preps to Group 2 while evaluators work Group 1 for ground prep testing.
-Evaluators work Group 2 on air skills while AFFCD covers Course classwork.
-AFFCD and Evaluators work with Group 1 for air skills testing.

Note that activities for both groups would be happening at the same time.

Next month, same process now working with the old Group 2 guys for testing and the new Group 2 guys for pre-course learning.



I think it's too complicated, and that the costs and logistics are going to become a huge factor.

Example - we have run AFFICs at my dz for the past couple years running. We have never had more than 4 people in the course, and these were established, advertised courses. So everyone who could travel to the course did, and we still only had 4 people.

I think the answer, if there is an answer (or even a question), is to go back to the old format to a degree. You can have a pre-course to get your hands on the evaluators your working with, but there needs to be a 'start date' for the course where everything from that point forward is 'live'. Come ready to rock, or find yourself going home without a rating.

I don't think it's cheating to get a crack at the evaluators before hand, that's just being fair. Each one is different and has a different style. If the course standard is high enough, and there's a firm 'start date' for everyone, it puts it back on the student to prep sufficiently before the course.

I agree that you have a point about the status quo. When you get to practice until you and the evals feel your ready, and then you pass with just the min standard, you really snuck in under the wire and probably can't do the rating justice.



OK...two things.
1. You would still have the 4 in the AFFIC on site, PLUS how many ever doing the pre-course...two separate groups of people.
The only real difference is that of a) putting some home-grown practice time in between the two courses instead of back-to-back and b) running the two courses in parallel instead of linearly.
.
Ah, but you might not have the same evaluators for the two courses....but OTOH, you wouldn't be getting the same student for the 1st jump either.

Is that more clear or did you understand that in the first place? Just askin', eh?

You know, I know of one CD (your old-school guy), no longer in business, who allowed you so many practice jumps (pre-course) and then the evals started hell or high water. So, essentially, he was running both courses as one.

2. Got anything for other areas of AFFIC besides air-skills?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not have an AFF Instructor school? Take a week/month (or however long needed), teach everything that AFFIs are expected to know, test & evaluate, then graduate those that make it. Isn't that how the rest or the universe does it? Why does skydiving need to be different from other education systems/models?
The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocPop


Having said that, being able to teach to B license level requires far more knowledge that just to be able to pass the B license test (I am thinking of the theory of aerodynamics, stalls, how the canopy turns with different inputs etc, etc).



OK..B-license level.

Question:
Not everybody is an aeronautical engineer and theoretical aerodynamics may not be sufficiently grasped to the level we may expect. Besides that, I question the real need for theoretical knowledge when practical knowledge and skill is far more important.

How do we reply to that argument?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper

***
Having said that, being able to teach to B license level requires far more knowledge that just to be able to pass the B license test (I am thinking of the theory of aerodynamics, stalls, how the canopy turns with different inputs etc, etc).



OK..B-license level.

Question:
Not everybody is an aeronautical engineer and theoretical aerodynamics may not be sufficiently grasped to the level we may expect. Besides that, I question the real need for theoretical knowledge when practical knowledge and skill is far more important.

How do we reply to that argument?

Just to be clear, I meant the instructor should have some aerodynamics knowledge, not that it should be taught to the student. I feel like a good teacher has a greater depth of information than what they are trying to teach.

I don't think it's too much to ask that an AFFI knows how a canopy creates lift, or understands flow separation as it applies to a stall etc... I hear a lot of misinformation being passed around the DZ such as "get big to get back from a long spot upwind" and I would love for the sport as a whole to get more knowledge about this sort of thing.

I'm certainly not trying to say that everyone should earn the name "LeBlanc" or "Germain"!
"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deisel

Why not have an AFF Instructor school? Take a week/month (or however long needed), teach everything that AFFIs are expected to know, test & evaluate, then graduate those that make it. Isn't that how the rest or the universe does it? Why does skydiving need to be different from other education systems/models?



It's really what we have now:
teaching = pre-course
testing = course

The missing part is the general knowledge needs...including CC.

In fact, we do have self-declared "schools" for this (skydiveratings.com for one) but none that I know of who teach or test for general skydiving knowledge. The "school" part comes in because they have brick/mortar establishments. There are more traveling "schools".

There is
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes we have schools, but as you point out they are incomplete and insufficient. I'm talking about a complete course of instruction that includes a soup to nuts cirriculum concerning all things AFF. Including the prerequisite knowledge.

IMO our problem here is that we are assuming that through the completion of the needed jumps to get your rating, you gain the needed level of general skydiving knowledge. And while at one time this may have been a valid assumption, it certainly isn't today. This is why I support revamping certain aspects of the course. But it should be done in a manner that addresses what the specific shortfalls are.
The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone else gets it. And I would support your re-designed school idea.

Quote


IMO our problem here is that we are assuming that through the completion of the needed jumps to get your rating, you gain the needed level of general skydiving knowledge.


That and we are assuming the candidates already have the knowledge prior to arrival and that's simply just not true in all too, many cases.

I would I have included the "...at one time...valid assumption,...".
IMO, I can't see it as ever being valid. But that's just me.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2. Got anything for other areas of AFFIC besides air-skills?



Again, I think what it all comes down to is what sort of course you want to run. Is it a training course or a testing course? Are you there to learn to become an instructor, or are you there to prove that you are ready to be an instructor from the get-go?

In terms of the ground school and 'general knowledge', I would vote that the training course is the way to go. In terms of the FJC material, and the ground preps for the subsequent cats, there's a written curriculum for that, and as such it's easy to teach that material in a classroom setting. Most candidates will know the material already, but what they can do is reinforce effective ways of teaching that material. Even if you have a 'special needs' student who might not 'get it' right away, you have the luxury of time on your side to try another teaching method until they do.

Compare that to the air skills where the last thing you have is time. You also don't have a written curriculum of how to handle the unlimited number of possibilities that you might encounter in-air. That's why there should be a firm 'start date' where the practice jumps end for everyone. It put's the pressure back on the student to really ramp up the preparation and to show up more than ready in order to give themselves a buffer.

As it sits now, they show up sort-of ready and then do prep dives until they feel good. Then they can just barely pass the evals and they're good to go. If the pre-course was limited, and there was a 'start date', a serious candidate would show up ready to rock even before the pre-course. If it rained every day during the pre-course, they would still be more than ready to ensure that they are not wasting their time and money by taking the course.

Back to your proposal, I get your idea, still think it's impractical. Even if you had the same evaluators, it doesn't mean that you'll be able to get enough jumpers to run two courses within a reasonable amount of time. The simpler solution is the one I outlined above where there is a hard 'start date'. It achieves the same result of not letting the candidates just stumble into the course and squeak by over-doing the practice dives during the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let’s look at this from an education perspective. You must begin with where you want to end. This is what we must first agree on and how we get there is a secondary concern. The end point is an AFFI that can do what exactly? Once we answer this question, only then can it be determined the appropriate method for achieving the outcome. The discussion of ‘what should an AFFI know’ would require a new thread to fully discuss, so I’ll leave it alone for now.

I happen to be a fan of how pilots are trained and maybe we should consider emulating their process. For those that aren’t familiar, a private pilot’s license can be obtained under either FAR part 61 of part 141. Briefly, part 61 is informal training with any CFI and no structured curriculum (by FAA standards). Part 141 is a structured school house environment whose curriculum is periodically reviewed by the FAA and required ‘stage checks’ throughout the training. One must pass a stage in order to proceed to the next. Graduates of both systems arrive at the FAA testing site ready to rock, but part 61 grads must have more flight hours completed in order to test out.

We are currently using a very loose copy of this training system, but without any USPA oversight of anyone’s curriculum. I believe that once we decide on the specific block of knowledge needed to be an AFFI, which is very different from what knowledge is currently required to pass the course. Only then we can determine an appropriate manner in which to train them.
The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two courses
1 Training
1 Testing

I'd like to see the training to include much more than simple air skills which is all we have now.

Hey! AFFI-1, AFFI-2
(senior - master, newbie - old fart...whatever)
That sounds awfully familiar.
:D:D

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You must begin with where you want to end. This is what we must first agree on and how we get there is a secondary concern.


Thanks. Some reasoning. Thanks again.
That's why they pay you the big bucks, eh?
:D

Quote

The end point is an AFFI that can do what exactly?


At minimum:
-Teach FJC
-Teach all in-air levels of Harness Hold student training
(note this includes canopy work)
-Perform all in-air skills of Harness Hold student training
-Teach general skydiving information up to and including all student sign-off requirements for licensing.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davelepka

there's a written curriculum for that, and as such it's easy to teach that material in a classroom setting. Most candidates will know the material already,...


This is the hole that needs plugging. It's what generated this whole discussion. You would think that was true but there seems to be too many cases where they don't.

Quote

That's why there should be a firm 'start date' where the practice jumps end for everyone.


You keep saying that and I keep saying that two distinct courses would solve that problem. You learn at one, you test at the other. Training class starts date XX, testing starts date YY. That would take that option you are arguing against right out of the equation because it DOES have definite start dates.

Quote

As it sits now, they show up sort-of ready and then do prep dives until they feel good.


We've been through this already. Personally, re-thinking, I see no value in limiting training. Train for a month if you like...it can only help. It has always been "sort-of ready" for training by the vast, vast majority of candidates.

Quote

The simpler solution is the one I outlined above where there is a hard 'start date'.


I guess what you are saying here is maintain the back-to-back training and test just put a hard stop date to training and start testing.
Geez...that's what we have now in many cases. No difference.

AND it does nothing to promote better AFFI skills AND knowledge which is the point of all this.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popsjumper

Two courses
1 Training
1 Testing

I'd like to see the training to include much more than simple air skills which is all we have now.

Hey! AFFI-1, AFFI-2
(senior, master, newbie, old fart...whatever)



We have that now. It's called "Pre-course" and "Course."
You're not happy with it.
Separating the two by a week, month, whatever...makes it financially impractical for anyone who is a "traveling examiner" and for those that would be candidates for the course.
The few brick/mortar examiners out there are terrific. But, a lot of people don't want to travel to those brick/mortars. DJ has a great school at Spaceland. Tom runs a terrific program at Eloy. Bram has a great place in Zhills. We have a great program at Elsinore.
Four out of 273 DZs doesn't work for the majority of the membership. USPA especially makes it clear that if any movement has a negative impact on a small Cessna DZ, then they're absolutely not going for it.
Wanting to improve things is terrific, and there probably are much better answers out there, particularly with technology.
However.....

You're also one of those that argued against a wingsuit instructional program, and IIRC, part of your argument was that it was just "one jump."
Well...AFF is only 5-7 jumps at a lot of DZ's. Applied logic says that if skydivers are the product of their instruction, then regardless of how much the program could possibly be changed, people will continue to do stupid things, because there will always be stupid instructors.
Perfect example of stupid advanced instruction; the vast majority of wingsuit "instructors" don't teach instability recovery. Nor do their "examiners."
I've had AFF students come to our DZ who have never actually touched a hackey as part of their emergency procedures training, even though this is an integral part of the training.

You cannot weed out 'poor' from the process. All you can do is make the best standard that is attainable within the pool of candidates, their fiscal ability, and their geographic availability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0